delete_light

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool deletes a light object and its data, which implies irreversibility, but it doesn't mention whether deletion is permanent, whether it affects scene references, or whether any confirmation is needed. The description adds minimal context beyond the obvious destructive action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, short sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the action. It is concise, though it could earn a 5 by adding a brief usage note without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. An agent needs to know what 'name' refers to, whether the action is reversible, and what happens to the light's data. The sibling list shows many related deletion tools, but the description doesn't help an agent distinguish this one.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'name' parameter. It does not explain what 'name' refers to (e.g., the light object's name in the scene) or how to find valid names. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's bare property definition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a light object and its data'), which clearly identifies the operation. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like delete_object and delete_objects because it targets lights specifically, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_object or delete_objects. The description implies it is for lights, but it doesn't state exclusions or provide context for choosing it over similar deletion tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.